Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

Posts

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

I have to concur that they are very different. What if it was a different scenario?

Hey Evander, I found your wallet, do you want to come get it?

vs

Hey everyone on the internet, I got Evander's wallet. Here's his credit card numbers, his id numbers, even social security numbers!

If I'm not responsible for safeguarding secrets then I guess posting those numbers wouldn't be big deal and the police wouldn't be knocking on my door right?

Nice appeal to emotion.

If my personal information was considered newsworthy, then there is nothing different of importance between those two scenarios.

Would I be upset? Sure. That wouldn't give me the right to retaliate, though.

"He hit first" is not a justifiable defense.

...It isn't? I don't see retaliation as inherently unethical. Retaliation and deterrence are a big part of punitive damages.
I've agreed with some of your pro-journalist points but I cannot get behind the anti-retaliation thing.

It is kind of interesting that Apple doesn't have some sort of GPS service they could've used to, you know, track down their own prototype phones in case something like this happens, since apparently MobileMe is broken in the betas.

A tech journalist was found dead today. He is survived by his wife and two children.

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

Quid last I knew you worked for the United States government and were not a journalist.

Wait, really? If you were a celebrity and someone posted your credit card and social security numbers to the Internet to much fanfare you wouldn't be entitled to retaliation?

Retaliation is never entitled.

What are you, five?

You could potentially sue for damages, but getting a cop to harass a guy who is no longer doing anything illegal is wrong.

Information about an upcoming gadget is a far cry from a credit card number, though. The big difference is that everythign Gizmodo posted is stuff that Apple WANTS people to know, just not yet. It isn't secret so much as it is "secret right now." No one can take this information and empty out Apple's bank account.

There is no actual cost to Apple here, only a potential opportunity cost.

They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

Two very different things.

Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

I have to concur that they are very different. What if it was a different scenario?

Hey Evander, I found your wallet, do you want to come get it?

vs

Hey everyone on the internet, I got Evander's wallet. Here's his credit card numbers, his id numbers, even social security numbers!

If I'm not responsible for safeguarding secrets then I guess posting those numbers wouldn't be big deal and the police wouldn't be knocking on my door right?

Nice appeal to emotion.

If my personal information was considered newsworthy, then there is nothing different of importance between those two scenarios.

Would I be upset? Sure. That wouldn't give me the right to retaliate, though.

"He hit first" is not a justifiable defense.

So you're saying if its news worthy then whoever shouldn't be able pursue legal action against those who aided in illegal activities?

-edit-

I wouldn't call the loss of trade secrets and and potential hit to their stock "no actual cost"

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

Quid last I knew you worked for the United States government and were not a journalist.

Oh okay.

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?

This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.

Do you think MSoft or Google would have bought it though?

If either did and that ever got out...damn what a shitstorm that would cause. Far beyond the scope of this little thread.

I think MSoft and Google would have wanted to. It would be tantalizing. But I doubt they would have.

Wait, really? If you were a celebrity and someone posted your credit card and social security numbers to the Internet to much fanfare you wouldn't be entitled to retaliation?

Retaliation is never entitled.

What are you, five?

You could potentially sue for damages, but getting a cop to harass a guy who is no longer doing anything illegal is wrong.

Information about an upcoming gadget is a far cry from a credit card number, though. The big difference is that everythign Gizmodo posted is stuff that Apple WANTS people to know, just not yet. It isn't secret so much as it is "secret right now." No one can take this information and empty out Apple's bank account.

There is no actual cost to Apple here, only a potential opportunity cost.

Retaliation in this case being "legal action". I don't have a problem with "legal action". I don't know what the crack about my age has to do with it. Now if you had said "revenge" I would be more likely to agree with you but I don't characterize it as revenge.

Again, and this is something I've asked twice already to no answer, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? Did they say "raid this guy's place" and if so do you have proof or did they just raise a fuss and then the police decided on what to do?

They didn't come forward to Apple and say, "We have your stolen phone, please have it back."

They posted it on the stupid Internet and said, "We have this phone, check out all its secrets."

Two very different things.

Not very different. Posting it online probably actually got Apple's attention faster than an email or phonecall would have, so that does their due diligence for informing Apple.

And as for posting the secrets online, it is not Gizmodo's responsibility to safeguard those secrets. Giz was wrong to buy stolen merchandise. They were arguably wrong to open it up (if they did the unit absolutely zero harm by opening it, and resealed it good as new, then I would be willing to defend them opening it.) Posting the information online isn't wrong, though.

I have to concur that they are very different. What if it was a different scenario?

Hey Evander, I found your wallet, do you want to come get it?

vs

Hey everyone on the internet, I got Evander's wallet. Here's his credit card numbers, his id numbers, even social security numbers!

If I'm not responsible for safeguarding secrets then I guess posting those numbers wouldn't be big deal and the police wouldn't be knocking on my door right?

Nice appeal to emotion.

If my personal information was considered newsworthy, then there is nothing different of importance between those two scenarios.

Would I be upset? Sure. That wouldn't give me the right to retaliate, though.

"He hit first" is not a justifiable defense.

So you're saying if its news worthy then whoever shouldn't be able pursue legal action against those who aided in illegal activities?

What kind of legal action are you talking about?

If Apple was alleging that Gizmodo cost them damages, and was trying to sue for that, I would likely disagree with the damages ammount, but I wouldn't call them wrong for doing it.

What appears to be going on here, however, is Apple pressing some kind of criminal charges. Considering that Gizmodo returned the device to apple without any resistance, I view this as out of line.

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?

This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.

Do you think MSoft or Google would have bought it though?

If either did and that ever got out...damn what a shitstorm that would cause. Far beyond the scope of this little thread.

I think MSoft and Google would have wanted to. It would be tantalizing. But I doubt they would have.

Google wouldn't, it would be evil as fuck.

And MSoft probably wouldn't give a shit as they hate Apple anyway and think their stuff is dumb and why would anyone want to copy it

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

No see it's only cool if you buy his stolen property and then post about buying his stolen property on your blog

shield law protects journalists from being compelled to name sources, not from the consequences of committing a felony

But...

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Chen is protected from a warrant by both state and federal laws.

The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if it’s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime.

...which makes it sound like the officers - who seized a lot of stuff in the raid - did so illegally.

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

No see it's only cool if you buy his stolen property and then post about buying his stolen property on your blog

and then you break it

Yeah man I get it now. So long as it's for a story it's cool to commit a felony. It makes perfect sense.

Nobody is "pressing" criminal charges here. The police are collecting evidence and the District Attorney of San Matteo county may file charges. Apple, it turns out, doesn't have the ability to control criminal law!

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

So you're saying so long as I don't explicitly ask someone to steal stuff for me it's cool to buy stuff I know they stole?

No see it's only cool if you buy his stolen property and then post about buying his stolen property on your blog

and then you break it

Yeah man I get it now. So long as it's for a story it's cool to commit a felony. It makes perfect sense.

if you get tired of being married you should write a blog post about hiring a man to kill your wife

shield law protects journalists from being compelled to name sources, not from the consequences of committing a felony

But...

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Chen is protected from a warrant by both state and federal laws.

The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if it’s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime.

...which makes it sound like the officers - who seized a lot of stuff in the raid - did so illegally.

Which is an awful, dumb mistake on the part of the cops if it turns out to be the case.

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.

I can sort-of get behind this philosophy in theory, free information and all that. And in small doses I don't think it's harmful. But practically, it's a terrible philosophy. Protections for inventors are in place to encourage innovation, and are thus incredibly important if we want people to keep inventing things. So no, not a net loss for society.

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?

This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.

Do you think MSoft or Google would have bought it though?

If either did and that ever got out...damn what a shitstorm that would cause. Far beyond the scope of this little thread.

I think MSoft and Google would have wanted to. It would be tantalizing. But I doubt they would have.

Google was a poor example, because they don't do so much hardware. Let's swap them with Motorola or HTC.

Yes, I do think they would have bought the unit, but I don't think they'd have made it publicly known. They'd have paid cash and made sure not to leave a paper trail.

These things actually do happen. Not with extreme frequency, because all of these corps are very good at keeping their prototypes private, but yes, competitors in the business world want to get their hands on each others' trade secrets.

Some of you guys seem to really hate freedom of the press, here. I mean really, what's the downside of allowing the press to report on this? It isn't like they stole the phone, and it isn't like they paid someone to steal the phone. A guy had it, they paid for it to report on it. I really don't like to see any limits on the press to report accurate information.

edit: oh hey it appears that the post above me indicates that the law is maybe on my side. Sweet. Go go freedom of the press.

I'm not an expert on Trade Secret law, but this might be considered misappropriation of trade secrets. Of course, TS is a civil, not criminal, matter.

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?

Theft is probably worse

I mean, if you disagree I'll be happy to write a blog post about the contents of your bank account

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.

Got it. You don't believe company's have any right to privacy.

Good luck with that.

Er, no. Individuals have a right to privacy, sort of, which is nice and all but frankly so diluted a 'right' as to be worthless (any ECHELON employees reading this post: everything written under the alias 'nescientist' is parody and should not be taken seriously under any circumstances ever. In reality, I enjoy heterosexual intercourse, capitalism, and large motor vehicles. I am a sworn enemy of the Red Menace, and maintain my many many guns in case of an underhanded commie attack on the hallowed soil of this great country.)

No, I don't believe that there is a governmental interest in protecting trade secrets, if that's what you mean. The opposite, in fact. And yes, I know I'm the minority in my beliefs about information, thanks. But the nice thing about a debate forum is that there aren't usually idealism police out to get me, just thoughtful people willing to deconstruct my half-baked notions with contradictory evidence or incisive commentary. Usually.

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?

False dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to protect reporters who don't commit felonies. It's not a felony to report leaked information. It is a felony to buy stolen goods.

So you're saying if its news worthy then whoever shouldn't be able pursue legal action against those who aided in illegal activities?

What kind of legal action are you talking about?

If Apple was alleging that Gizmodo cost them damages, and was trying to sue for that, I would likely disagree with the damages ammount, but I wouldn't call them wrong for doing it.

What appears to be going on here, however, is Apple pressing some kind of criminal charges. Considering that Gizmodo returned the device to apple without any resistance, I view this as out of line.

Just because they returned the device doesn't make what they did suddenly disappear and everything is a wash.

What did they do that hurt Apple? Publish the information.

Publishing that information wasn't illegal, though.

But paying $5000 for stolen property sure was.

As such, pressing criminal charges against them is perverting the system in order to "get back at them", not actually working to rectify the situation.

I guess it is a good thing that Big Boy, Real-World law doesn't work like whichever episode of Perry Mason you are basing the notion that someone has to "press criminal charges" for the police and DA to pursue a crime that happened in their jurisdiction on.

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?

Theft is probably worse

I mean, if you disagree I'll be happy to write a blog post about the contents of your bank account

That article wouldn't be very long.

And it isn't theft, it's receipt of (maybe? but I'll give you that point because I have no idea what the exact law is in California, but it's usually a specific intent crime) stolen goods which is a different thing altogether. How are you getting the information about my bank account? That's pretty important to your absurd hypothetical that is in no way analogous to the case at hand here.

Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase

So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?

Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?

This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.

Do you think MSoft or Google would have bought it though?

If either did and that ever got out...damn what a shitstorm that would cause. Far beyond the scope of this little thread.

I think MSoft and Google would have wanted to. It would be tantalizing. But I doubt they would have.

They wouldn't have touched it. Some people here in Atlanta stole Coca-Cola's secret formula and tried to sell it to Pepsi. The first thing Pepsi did was call Coca-Cola and tell them someone was trying to sell their stuff - big companies don't mess with trade secrets. Like someone said, this guy probably tried to go to Engadget and start a bidding war, but Time-Warner's lawyers said "fuck no".

So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.

Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?

Theft is probably worse

I mean, if you disagree I'll be happy to write a blog post about the contents of your bank account

The problem is that, while this all may play out as theft in the eyes of the law, what actually went down was a far cry from some kind of high tech heist aimed at stealing high tech stuff, or even a dude pickign another dude's pocket.

A guy found a thing and only made a half assed attempt at returning it. Yet this scenario is being come down on MUCH harder than most cases where somebody buys a thing that some one else took directly out of a person's home.

Look at pawn shops. Pawn shops buy stolen goods all of the time. Everyone knowns this. Pawn shops don't get constantly raided by the cops, though. Instead, when a pawn shop has a good that the cops know tto be stolen, the cops ask the pawn shop to hand it over.

There is no way to argue that preferential treatment towards Apple isn't going on here. People who purchase stolen property and then return it to the rightful owners don't generally have their houses raided.